Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 029

Tuesday, May 2 2006

• 41 years in the Midbar?
• Re: Yom Tov Sheni
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• RE: spilling of wine
• Re: Dialectic tension
• Re: Korban Pesach
• tzitzis on shabbos
• Re: Oseh Maasei Bereishis
• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura
• Re: pronouncing sheimes
• population of Israel
• Re: 41 years in the Midbar?
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: pronouncing sheimes

Rashi (Bamidbar 10:33) says that the Yiden made it to Eretz Yisroel in
one day instead of three days.

I understand that this travel came after a year of having already been
in the Midbar, because they already put up the Miskan and already made
pesach -Vayasu es hapesach Bimoado...

Considering the fact that men between the ages of 20 and 60 were killed
because of the Meraglim, and that the miraglim happened after this travel,
that means that they were in the Midbar for 40 years after this travel.

Doesnt that mean that they were in the Midbar for 41 years total?

1 year, then travel, then 40 years of punishement, =41

Velvel
Velvelg@yahoo.com

"the soil is rich here but given wholly to ashes...there was hardly
a tree or shrub anywhere...even the olives and the cactus, had almost
deserted the country...Jerusalem is mournful and dreary and lifeless"
Mark Twain. 1860

>> Would anyone know of any sources that might imply that bnei hagolah's
>> observance of two days of yom tov is due to the fact that they are not in
>> Eretz Yisrael and therefore are bereft of the opportunity to observe the
>> chag in its ideal form? In other words, Is "minhag avoteinu byadeinu"
>> (as the rationale for the continued observance of Yom Tov Sheni in Chu"l)
>> just a statement of "minhag bnei galut" differing from "minhag bnei E"Y"
>> without making any kind of qualitative judgement on the differences
>> between the minhagim?

I remember that this is Rav Saadia Gaon's position - that second day
yom tov is because of kdushat eretz yisrael. IIRC, he also holds that
the calendar was always calculated - the edim came, but the bet din
always knew.

IIRC, this is discussed at length in a volume of the torah shelema
devoted to the calendar (it is on parshat bo, around vol 13)

Meir Shinnar

Rav Elazar Teitz said:
>Since I have not followed this thread consistently, I'll apologize
>in advance if this has already been mentioned, but if the reason for
>spilling is not because of our joy being (at least minimally) tempered by
>loss of human life, why _do_ we spill wine? All the reasons mentioned
>are explanations of the means of spilling, not of the spilling itself.

Yes it has been mentioned. This is the 3rd time I'm listing primary sources:

Who DO we spill wine ??

The reason WHY we spill wine is given **EXPLICITLY** by the Darchei Moshe
in the TUR OC 473 ["nekama!!"], and by the Maharil Seder HaHaggada #
27 quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya: Hashem avenges and destroys the
enemies of the Jews. Or as the Maharil states: "v'nir'eh li ha'taam,
mikol eilu yatzileinu v'yavo'u al soneinu".

In addition, all the following give the reason of "etzba elokim" for
spilling the drops of wine, QUOTING THE MAHARIL: R. Moshe Isserlis this
time as the Rema in OC 473 (here he mentions the Maharil); Magen Avraham
OC 473 s"k 28; Aruch haShulchan OC 473 #24; Mishna Brura 473 #74, 75;
Beer Heitev 473 # 26.

What's intriguing is that Biyurei haGRA on OC 473 s'k 45 seems to find
a source for this in the Yerushalmi!! (as usual the GRA is cryptic). It
looks to me that he's referring to the Yerushalmi Pesachim 68b {"v'eshchat
otam al kos par'o" and the gemara then quotes a passuk from Yirmiyahu
and then Tehillim 11 "ki kos b'yad Hashem YIMTAR AL RESHAIM" [caps mine]

There is absolutely NO source whatsoever (prior to the year 1900) by
any Acharon [and I'm not referring to some chassidishe amha'aretz with
a diploma who can "macht a moitzie fin a reitach", or to someone like
the "Meet our Ketanim" column in the 1979 parody NOT THE JEWISH PRESS
where we discussed R. Chaim Hochlieber the 'Krotz of Blitta' who in a
pique declared that eating on Yom Kippur wasn't so bad as long as you
bentched afterwards :-)] that the reason for spilling out drops of wine
is because of "binfol oyivcha".

And please don't quote the supposed Abarbanel because as I demonstrated
(I gave the URL for //jnul.huji.ac.il where you can read the original
manuscript of the Abarbanel Haggadah) he says NO SUCH THING!!

So if it's between the reason given by our mesorah (Talmud Yerushalmi,
Rokeach. Raavya, Maharil, Darchei Moshe/Rema, Magen Avraham,. Aruch
Hashulchan and the Mishna Brura) against some new pshat that has zero
basis in Jewish tradition, I'll stick with the mesorah. Especially if
the new pshat came out from the "hallowed halls" of the Reform and
Conservative clergy in the late 1930's. That it has permeated some
bastions of Orthodoxy (e.g. Ohr Sameach, Aish haTorah, Artscroll) is an
acute embarrassment.

BTW while going over the Rokeach, I was astounded that virtually EVERY
source he brings is from the Yerushalmi, so the fact that the Rokeach
(late 11th, early 12th century) seems to be the first to give the reason
makes sense.

To sum up: it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our feeling
sorrow for the poor, nebich Egyptians. Au contraire!! It is to show how
Hashem will DESTROY our enemies. Which is completely opposite to the
"binfol oyivcha" idea.

[Email #2. -mi]

R. Jacob Farkas said:
>My suggestion is to find one instance in our history where we celebrated
>the demise of a Rasha outright. If Aval aheirim meisis is the way you
>understand it, there should be a plethora, as our enemies were many.

Access the old Jewish Encyclopedia over the Internet. It lists 29
special Purims; the new Encycopedia Judaica lists 110. One example is
the famous Purim Fettmilch in Frankfort 1614. The rabbanut instituted a
special Purim" when Fettmilch the enemy of the Jews was executed. There
are many other instances where a major rabbanut instituted a special
day of Hoda'a over the DEMISE OF A RASHA.

KT
Josh

REMT wrote:
>if the  reason for
>spilling is not because of our joy being (at least  minimally) tempered by
>loss of human life, why _do_ we spill wine? All  the reasons mentioned
>are explanations of the means of spilling, not of  the spilling itself.

RJB responded:
>.....Why DO we spill wine  ??
> .... Hashem avenges and destroys the enemies of the  Jews.....

[RJB then once again gives an explanation -- by now redundant -- which
really explains why some spill with a finger -- which is not the question
that was asked:]
> all the following give the reason of "etzba elokim" for spilling the
> drops of wine, QUOTING THE MAHARIL: etc

RJB concludes:
> It is to show how Hashem will DESTROY our  enemies.

I must say I am absolutely flabbergasted by this bloodthirsty explanation
which seems to indicate that we Jews LITERALLY enjoy spilling blood!

 -Toby  Katz
=============

I don't know if any one has mentioned it but it seems that the earliest
source to mention this custom is maharil who says that it seems to him
that the reason is to say that G-d should save us from all these troubles
and send them to our enemies for the cups of wine are for the salvation
of Israel.

Joseph Tabory

TROn Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:07:15AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
:> If it were only the "correct" opinion that were important, than all
:> you would need is the Mishneh Torah

: If you read the Rambam's introduction to the Mishne Torah the Rambam
: says exactly that...

For newbies, that's still only 2/3 of talmud Torah. Mishneh Torah is
mishnah. Compliments Tana"kh, miqrah. There is still gemara. AND the
Rambam holds that someone mature in his learning should be spending
MOST of his time in gemara (lomdus or derashas hapesuqim, depending on
results of an earlier Avodah debate).

But perhaps the need for certainty that so dimayed RMShinnar is related to
the phenomenon that many RZ are becoming Rambamists, Darada'i wannabees.
IOW, the fact that we don't all just follow the Rambam proves that we
rejected this singularist model.

Back to the subject in the subject line...

In her unfamiliarity with the term, RLL blurred two issues. I tried to
separate them before, I will try again.

Dialectic tension is a feature of the human experience. It includes
ambivalence, our capability for feeling conflicting emotions in response
to a single event. It also includes all those human truths in which
conflicting descriptions are both true: the greatness of man, and his
neediness; society as a resource to help the individual, yet serving
the society is a high calling for the individual; etc...

In halachic contexts, RYBS usually utilizes dialectic tension as a
means of explaining why some mitzvah is really tzvei dinim. He holds
that halakhah's job is to address the dialectic, and therefore a pesaq
can not take one side by ignoring another facet of the human condition.
It's more "Given this internal conflict, how does halakhah enable us to
live with both and tell us in which situations each comes to the fore?"

Machloqes and eilu va'eilu is an entirely different subject. The fact
that eilu va'eilu is also taken by many in a very literal sense is
coincidental to whether each side is trying to deal with coexisting but
conflicting emotions, perceptions and values.

Last, finding complimentary reasons for a din may provide lomdus experts
with room to explore why this reason is given in this context, and this in
that. But they neither necessarily contradict, nor /require/ resolving.
And in this case, it's not even in two different contexts -- in the 2nd
location the BY says both; (colloquially), "we all know the gemara's
ta'am for Chatzi Hallel, and the Shibolei haLeqet quotes a medrash
which adds..."

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 18th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             balance?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:30:28PM +0000, Arie Folger wrote:
:> For bein hashemashos, we discuss 3/4 mil as a unit of time. Also, as
:> already noted ROY holds that tefillas haderekh is based on mil as a unit
:> of time. Is the gemara explicit that the millin in question are distance,
:> not the time to walk that distance?

: Yes. Pesa'him 94a:
: Tanu Rabbanan: Haya 'omed 'hutz laModi'im veyakhol likanes besusim
: ubefradim, yakhol yehei 'hayav, talmud lomar "uvederekh lo hayah",
: vahaloh hayah.

You assume that besusim ubefradim he could make it in less than 15 mil
of time, despite it being more than 15 mil of distance. And then the
gemara would be explicitly ruling out our case. Which makes sense at
first glance, until I looked at the names.

Ula tells us two things on the pervious amud (93b): Modiin is 15 mil away,
and derekh rekhokah means "too far to get to the azarah by sunset". A
time measure. So, I'm lost as to what's going on here. Modiin seems
to be a time measure, in which case wouldn't we get there in time for
sheqi'ah is we left Modi'in -- which is 15 mil [space] away -- by horse?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

Concerning the above statements about wearing tzitzis on Shabbos, nobody
holds like that Baal Hamaor, rather Reb Chaim was m'dayek from a Rambam
that there is a hotzaa problem without techales, but this is not pashtus
in that Rambam. Thus there is a clear difference between Shabbos and chol.

Avi

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:11:29AM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
:                Also, the "Oseh" of MB arguably refers to the One Who is
: replicating and/or maintaining MB now in the present, not "The One Who
: [in the past] created (in actual or potential)" what we are seeing now.

IMHO, the ambiguity between "is making" and "Maker" says something very
profound about Yahadus.

1- That lashon haqodesh is better suited for communication from the
perspective of One who is lema'alah min hazeman (see Aspaqlaria at
<http://tinyurl.com/jhqmm>); and

2- That we view the essence of people (and, I argue, devarim
in general) as being defined by the relationships in which they
partake, not as having essences which interrelate (also in my blog,
at <http://tinyurl.com/j3785>). And thus, there is no real
difference between what you're doing and who you are at the time.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 18th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             balance?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:23:47AM -0400, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: It took the CC more then TWO decades to write his peirush on JUST OC.
: "Less analytical and investigative"? I think not...

It would take 2 decades to properly produce an encyclopedic collection
of opinions, even without publishing one's analysis of those sources.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:26:03AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I would say the Ahs is more openly analytical (and perhaps thus
: less subject to diyukim , intended or not). AIUI He usually uses the
: Rambam/Gemara as a starting point and takes you through the issues. The
: M"B aiui is less likely to explain the thought process.

I would say that the MB was -- as the CC writes in the haqdamah -- a
survey of shitos that post-date the standardization of the SA page and
its nos'ei keilim. His purpose wasn't to analyze shitos, but to present
as many as possible. Yes the MB gives his maskanos, but that's not the
tachlis of the seifer. Nor, as RSM proved, were the maskanos even what
the CC himself did lema'aseh!

The AhS had a very different mission. To explain the practices of Litta.
WADR to R' Dr Haym Soloveitchik, the book isn't a mimeticic approach to
halakhah because a true mimeticist wouldn't bother developing arguments
justifying the pesaq, he would just write e.g. "We hold like the Sha"ch
(or the Taz...) on this..."

One is encyclopedic the other analytic, the Sinai and the Okeir
Harim. They're both essential parts of talmud Torah. Simply different
things.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 18th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             balance?

FWIW, I say most of Maggid in English. I say sheim H' in full pesuqim,
and "Hashem" or "E-lokim" in partial quotes -- then translate. When
you're doing Maggid in la'az, that's what comes naturally.

-mi

according to an article in todays JP Israel is the country with the most
Jews passing the US. According to present guesses within 20-30 years the
majority of the Jews in the world will live in Israel.
In a truly halachik world that would seem to have many implications.
However, I am sure politics will prevent any of that.

--
Eli Turkel

See Rashi Bamidbar 14:33 who answers this.

>> From Avraham Avinu we see (by implication) that Jews do feel sorrow
>> about the deaths of human beings, even reshaim. 

>Where do we see that? I don't think the implication exists, really. 

See the Netziv's introduction to HaEmek Davar, Breishis. He explains that
Sefer Breishis is called Sefer Y'shorim after the Avos, who were called
Y'shorim because they showed concern even for the wicked. He specifically
refers to the example of Avraham Avinu's attitude to the people of S'dom.
This hakdama should be compulsory reading, especially for our children
and youth.

R'n LL and RJB have suggested that their opponents have been tainted by
the seepage of external values into the tents of Shem. This reflects
a commonly made assumption that values within modern Jewish thought
(or, more accurately, within the modern Jewish mindset) which share
any commonality with modern liberal values must be foreign and wrong.
In fact, the opposite is sometimes the case, eg racism, where much of what
passes as halachic justification of racism has its source in antebellum
Southern theology. Could it be that the "dancing-on-the-graves" attitude
prevalent amongst our current enemies has affected some in our camp? Moral
coarseness and religious authenticity are not synonymous.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

R' Josh Backon wrote:
> Access the old Jewish Encyclopedia over the Internet. It lists 29
> special Purims; the new Encycopedia Judaica lists 110. One example is
> the famous Purim Fettmilch in Frankfort 1614. The rabbanut instituted a
> special Purim" when Fettmilch the enemy of the Jews was executed. There
> are many other instances where a major rabbanut instituted a special
> day of Hoda'a over the DEMISE OF A RASHA.

Special Purims were instituted to celebrate the salvation or deliverance
of individuals or communities. In my last post I mentioned the Meshekh
Hakhmah who stated that Megilas Esther is very specific in pointing out
(and imparting the lesson) that the Yom Tov was for Nahu mei'oveihim and
NOT for the Mapalah of Haman. I would like to add that while on Purim
Hashgahah allowed for a day of Nahu mei'oveihim that was independent of
the day of Haman's demise, and so Mishteh V'Simha is obviously for Nahu
mei'oveihim, this may not have been the case in every subsequent 'Purim'
that was instituted. In no case is the celebration for the demise of
a Rasha.

What would be the Takhlis in celebrating Neqamah in its own right?
Celebration is for deliverance, not dancing on graves.

Jacob Farkas

> I came across this shtickl in Meshekh Hakhmah [Shemos 12:16 sv. U'vayom
> Harishon Miqra Kodesh vGo'] who states the following: [paraphrased -jf]
<snip>
> ...And so by the Neis of Purim, the Holiday was established neither
> on the day of Haman's hanging nor on the day that their enemies were
> killed, as this is not a time for rejoicing for Yisrael, rather the
> holiday of Purim was established on the day that they rested from
> their enemies...

Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, in Manos Haleivi [Esther 9:20 sv. Vayikhtov
Mordakhai] asks why not establish Purim for one day, on a day that would
signify the downfall of the enemy and avoid the necessity of having a
different days of Purim for Shushan and for the rest of the world?

He answers that we would not establish a Yom Tov on such a day, because
ein HQBH Same'akh beMapalasan shel r'sha'im. And since he is not happy
with their downfall, we too do not rejoice in this downfall. Rather we
rejoice in our deliverance and on nothing else.

(Manos HaLeivi was written in the 16th century. -jf)

Even if you consider Binfol Oyivkha to be specific to Jewish enemies,
not like the Yalqut quoting the Pesiqta, the Manos HaLeivi's point of ma
hu af attah WRT ein HQBH Sameiakh b'mapalasan is a valuable lesson. If
anything it sheds more light on Aval Aheirim meisis, that it is not an
obligation and a reason for celebration, rather it is a statement that
absolves those who may be rejoicing.

Jacob Farkas

 From: ELPhM Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
> Do you pronounce the sheimes in the aggadic parts of the Haggode in
> their "liturgical" way, or in the modern "lerning" way? My impression is
> that most people inadvertently handle the text as if it was a tefille,
> though they'd never pronounce the full names when they le(a)rn. Is it
> the nikked?

I recall that RMF wrote a teshuva dealing with this topic. (Can't
provide a reference, I'm afraid.) He cites with approval a Chacham Ts'vi
objection to the practice of reading p'sukim without reading the shem,
as it constitutes a hefsek (ie kol posuk d'lo posik Moshe Rabbeinu anan
lo paskinan). IIRC, he does suggest that p'sukim partially quoted in
Gemara should not be read with the shem. I would have thought that this
would also apply to the haggadah unless a whole possuk is read.

RTK referred to divergent customs with respect to use of the shem
in zemiros. This is altogether different, as zemiros are praises of
Hashem intended to be read as written - Rav Moshe's concern about using
the shem when partially quoting pesukim doesn't apply in that case.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]